For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
(Responding to a post by David Joslin called”Just Another Brick in the Barrier” at the “State of Formation” website.)
I’m trying to understand how a real peace can come about. As long as tribal identities remain the primary focus. The boundary of self interest prevents it.
Like ego at the individual level; the otherness from God and exile from True comprehension, is the foundation of misery.
We create and maintain the enemy by saving a space for him to arise in. It will always be so until the undivided nature of God is put first.
(Note: many of the following comments are from the blog “NONPROPHET STATUS” entitled “Atheism in the U.S. is not about civil rights.“)
Bret Zeller responding to HP McLovincraft – “Don’t worry. Today, secular folks make up a larger percentage of the US than at any other point. We are roughly half the EU, and are massively over represented in East Asia. Pretty soon, all of your Chinese and Japanese investors and business people will be Atheists (they already are there, but they will control more here). In China, everyone with any power is necessarily Atheist. If you want to do business in this world, you will soon need to be Atheist friendly just to compete.”
When did “secular” become equivalent to “atheist”?
Seems to me that the former refers to the vast no-man’s land of unsorted perspective. Certainly not an army of kindred enthusiasts.
” I’m well educated, well above average by most measures of intelligence, and I’m anti-religious as well as Atheist. That makes me typical for people in the “Atheist” category in the US.”
Are you saying you’re a narcissistic atheist jihadist? But you forgot “really good looking”.
Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to brag about how, “most measures of Intelligence”, provides great street cred.
My experience with these conversations is that like a fundamentalist Christian, the fundamentalist Atheist quickly leaves rationality behind in favour of emotional thinking.
This usually results in insulting the opponents intelligence. Trying to knock them off their game, or deflecting other readers attention from points that were well made by employing ridicule.
Above all, never admit that they have a point.
To the degree that the philosophy has merit, it does not require any of this and should stand on it’s own. Not as an absolute truth of course, but as a valid viewpoint. In the relative scheme of things.
Becoming personal, it becomes neurotic.
Bret Zeller responding to HP McLovincraft – ” I’d bet the terms “obnoxious atheist” and “uppity negro” will end up in the same dust bin of history.”
There is a difference between “obnoxious” and “uppity”.
For one thing, just about everybody has trouble with “obnoxious” people.
An “uppity atheist”, on the other hand, might just be the trick to turn the tide.
Standing firm in a coherent certainty about their (lack) of faith. Regardless of the consensus of opinion. This is how public consciousness is raised. By setting an example.
However, telling people that they are stupid, (actually, even loudly thinking it) quickly degrades one into an “asshole”.
It is one thing to educate people about non-theistic philosophy, and another to insist they give up their theistic one.
By the way, Einstein’s view on religion was definitely under represented in your earlier comment.
He knew that science can only go so far, and that the “cosmic religious feeling” was the yin to it’s yang.
If you consider religion to be vestigial, you lack credibility, at least as I see it. And presumably Albert as well.
(Edit: I misquoted Einstein by originally using “cosmic religious impulse”. “feeling” is correct and changes the meaning somewhat. Especially in counterpoint to science. It also serves my intended meaning better. I thank Bret Zeller for bringing this to my attention.)
Bret Zeller quoting Albert Einstein – ” But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.”- Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
This is what I teach to.
Not sure where you’re getting all that other stuff. (Note: I’m referring to a host of assumptions he made in the body of his comment.)
Bret Zeller – “He did consider the issues of morality and truth to be important. But he believed they were found within science and discovery, not in any sort of myth, superstition, or mysticism.”
It’s the “discovery” part that non-scientists, poets, artists, musicians, mystics, saints, yogis, zen masters participate in. The variations in “purity”, is the name of the game. That is the realm of intention and awakening.
The only part of “myth” that bothers me is the degree to which ones “self” is unaware of it’s mythic nature.
Bret Zeller – “It reminds me of the way in which artists and singers believe they are ‘creative’ but scientists and mathematicians are boring. In reality (and according to many a psychologist), the scientists and mathematicians are the truly creative ones, while much of the art community is simply mindless frivolity (not all of it, of course).”
So you do realize that you have generalized. The next line of questions then is by how much? Has the truth been distorted? Why and to what end?
Is this somehow different behaviour than that of which you complain?
By “that other stuff”, I referred to your assumptions about my role in all the cultural nonsense. As in:
“You guys regularly and publicly call us “evil”, so we call you guys “stupid”, yet you believe there is a difference in the level of respect? The fact of the matter is that you guys simply prefer your beliefs to be openly expressed and shared, and you want us to shut up about ours.”
Just to be a little more clear. I use the term “God” for what I consider good reasons. I also find it absurd to think of “God” as supernatural.
Basically your cause is political. I have made very similar arguments about the same issues but prefer not to make it personal. It being more an issue of pointing out what may not have been noticed yet.
At the very least we should apply the same critical eye to our fellows as we do our opponents. In this case, adherents of “modern revealed religions”. Which I’ll assume primarily means the Abrahamic traditions unless you say otherwise.
Myra Esoteric responding to Bret Zeller – “When they say a higher power just imagine that science is the higher power.”
Or even more accurately, the subject of enquiry is the higher power. i.e. reality.
This takes it beyond the reach of politics and opinion. Puts the phenomena of “belief”, “faith”, “hypothesis”, “preference”, “proclivity”, “aptitude” etc. in the correct perspective.